This house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is internet media

With many people in today's society going online and making friends it is not threatening our privacy as we have the choice to add friends, show our face book, myspace pictures and profile. With even pages to report people.

Also we are warned about this on tv at school and we only go online to chat to friends and meet friends friends.

Definitions:
This House: me
Believes: holds to be true
privacy: the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively. [1]
threatened: put in danger
current trends: contemporary tendencies or fads
Internet media: the World Wide Web

To clarify, I will NOT be arguing that the internet is harmful or should be removed. I recognize that the internet has several beneficial aspects and is overall a force for good. I will merely argue that the internet jeopardizes our privacy.
1) Identity theft.
Over 500,000 Americans suffer each year from Identity theft. [2] You might respond to some email that seems to be from your bank, asking for some details... and the next thing you know the money in your bank account has mysteriously disappeared!
2) Spyware
Some innocuous screensaver download might implant malevolent spyware in your computer. In its milder form, this spyware will send data about your browsing habits to web marketers so they can bombard you with spam. If its more evil, then the spyware could disable your computer and spread even further through your contact lists.
3) Cookies
Cookies are like your shopping lists. Your cookies can reveal your name, your e-mail address, your location, and which sites you have visited. Sites that you visit can capture your cookies. Do you really want the hentai site owner to know where you live?
4) Accessibility and durability of information online
That site that you made only for your close friends and that contains many inappropriate sexual innuendos can be found by your future employer and serve to prevent you from getting a job. I remember a news article that said many employers like to conduct google searches on their prospective employees before hiring them. Furthermore, whatever you post online will outlive you, and I'm not sure if I want my grandchildren to know what I was up to in my teens.

Ourprivacy can be protected whilst online by accepting only friends and hence you can not have access to profiles as they are set on private which is already done if you are under 16 on Social Networking sites. Also using a proxy server so your Ip can not be decoded to get passwords, bank details etc etc.

We are told about this when signing up to a facebook site so obviously you are signing up to having your privacy invaded which is part of the terms and conditions and whenever you do something ie. Upload photos you have to agree to terms and conditions and have to reconfirm and if it is a picture that people dont think is appropriate they can report it and hence the social netwroking site will take responsibility for it.
With cookies alike what many people do you can clear them so hence is safe.
With Google maps, you see blured images the same as if you were going down a street and has more benefits as when you want to go on holiday you can search where you will be staying, the area etc.

Accessibility and durability- If you made a site you have agreed for people to see it and if people dont want employees to see it dont add them and set your pages to private.

With such a technologically advanced system today our privacy is not threatened by the internet, as we mainly have to agree to terms and conditions and if you accept it it means that you acknowledge the risks and dont mind.
My opponent may state that perosnal details have been lost via the internet however, this occured when details where on paper.
Overall, on google maps they sensor number plates and you can go to see places that you might go to live/ go on holiday. Therefore i conclude that the positives on the internet out way the negatives. And if people are concerned maybe they shouldnt be using the internet and there are ways in our society to keep our details hidden from people.

Looks like I forfeited most rounds in this debate. Oh well. You can take off a point against me for Conduct! Nevertheless, when voting for Convincing Arguments, I urge you to keep in mind which side gave the better arguments.

Let me begin by noting that most of my opponent's arguments apply only to social networking sites. We are not debating merely about social networking sites, but about the internet in general! Thus, most of my arguments abouts the internet's harms go unrebutted:
(a) Identity theft: identity theft can make you lose your bank balance. It does not need to occur through social networking sites, but can happen even through email or false web sites.

(b) Spyware: While downloading manga or some new PDF reader (and not just social networking sites), your computer can fall prey to malicious spyware. It is well known that spyware can compromise your privacy.

(c) Cookies: Yes, cookies can be cleared. But many people fail to clear their cookies regularly. Most people do not use proxy servers. Con's argument presumes a fictional reality. Thus, uncleared cookies do threaten privacy.

(d) Durability of info online: Con respond that when people sign up on networking sites, they agree to let their privacy be threatened. So in essence, Con agree that the internet threatens people's privacy!

I concede my opponent's argument that GoogleMaps is not especially threatening to privacy. I also concede that the benefits of the internet outweigh its harms.

HOWEVER, if you look at the outset of this debate, I argued that my burden was not to prove that the internet is overall harmful; my burden was to show that it threatens privacy. I have done so.

tvann5m,
I will repost Clockwork's comment: "Almost all Parli cases begin with 'This house', and the Affirmative (or Neg, if the Aff fails) must define who is represented in the resolution by 'this house'."

The reason she's putting believe in the resolution is because she seems to be making a futile attempt at resolving a piece of homework for a debate class that's covering Parliamentary debate. I do quite a bit of Parli competitively on the side of LD, but she made a vital error in the phrasing of the resolution if this is the case.

Almost all Parli cases begin with "This house", and the Affirmative (or Neg, if the Aff fails) must define who is represented in the resolution by "this house".